Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

An anonymous reader writes "Following disputed elections in Iran, opposition groups and activists have turned conventional protests into a major threat to the ruling government. The low-intensity protest movement is rapidly becoming the first true netwar of the 21st century. Opposition protesters have shown that within a few hours or less, the information technologies that are the mainstay of modern society can become its weapons, as well.
This article examines the current situation in Iran and the part played by new media technologies and strategies, showing how far the theory and practice of netwar has advanced since the concept first emerged in the late nineties."

Threads on Fark have reached over 20K posts. People are setting up proxy servers to allow outgoing Twitter messages (bypassing Iranian firewall filters), with several people giving out do-it-yourself proxy kits. There is an active Go Green campaign and protests planned in many cities. Posting of relevant Twitter messages to keep everyone informed.

Here, here. Fark has stepped up to provide explanations and filter through the noise, and 4chan has stepped up to provide technical support and services to keep communication open. I'm actually a little surprised that Slashdot is as quiet as it is, considering the technical knowledge that it's known for and the many cries over censorship. This is censorship at its greatest, and no one here seems to want to lend a hand to the people who need some help getting around it.

This statement started off as a paragraph or two in the early threads...-Very worrying report: Supreme Leader Khameini has called for Friday Prayers where he will be present. There are fears that the IRG is going to have a massive presence and that this might be a trap, but on the other hand not attending makes the reformists enemies of Islam and worthy of the death penalty. There are also reports that other Reformist candidate Karoubi and his entire party leadership were arrested.

Nothing much has happened in the last hours aside of that. There are reports of clerics and ayatollahs meeting in the holy Shiite city of Qom in order to plan to overthrow Khameini as supreme leader, as well as a more and more pro-dissenters stance from the army, but we have nothing substantiated so far. I will yet update this tomorrow, adding further information about various other groups operating in Iran right now and relevant to this revolution.

I really am trying to cram the most relevant information and speculation only. Everything is updated as events unfold, especially the timeline and what will happen in the future. If you want to link this, here is the website, updated as the situation changes:

All twitter posts about the army being involved are false as I am writing this Warning, new twitter feeds are most likely government members trying to spread misinformation, ignore them! Also, there is a handful of good twitter feeds, but please do not publicize their usernames, they are in enough danger as it is and they don't need more publiclity. Those in the know will c/p their entries. Major timeline overhaul, including what has unfolded in the last few hours.

Suppression of Dissent - The Players

Currently, there are either two or three groups who are suppressing the students on the ground that you'll read about throughout this thread:

1. The Basij2. Ansar Hizbullah (which I will refer to as Ansar)3. Lebanese Hizbullah (Unconfirmed but highly probable. Der Spiegel, based on a Voice of America report, says that 5,000 Hizbullah fighters are currently in Iran masquerading as riot police, confirming the independent reports. Many different independent reports and video point that way. Even in the last hours other independent twitter feeds have declared witnessing thugs beating on people while shouting in Arabic; I will refer to them as Hizbullah)

- The Basij are your regular paramilitary organization. They are the armed hand of the clerics. The Basij are a legal group, officially a student union, and are legally under direct orders of the Revolutionary Guard. Their main raison d'Ãtre is to quell dissent. They are the ones who go and crack skulls, force people to participate in pro-regime demonstrations, and generally try to stop any demonstrations from even starting. They are located throughout the country, in every mosque, every university, every social club you can think of. They function in a way very similar to the brownshirts.

They were the ones who first started the crackdown after the election, but it wasn't enough. While they are violent and repressive, they are still Persian and attacking fellow citizens. A beating is one thing, mass killings another.

- Another group was working with them, whose members are even more extreme, is Ansar. There is a lot of cross-membership between the Basij and Ansar, though not all are members of the other group and vice-versa. The vast majority of Ansar are Persians (either Basij or ex-military), though a lot of Arab recruits come from Lebanon and train with them under supervision of the Revolutionary Guard. They are not functioning under a legal umbrella, they are considered a vigilante group, but they pledge loyalty directly to the Supreme Leader and most people believe that they are under his control. They are currently helping the Basij to control the riots, but due to the fact that they are Persians and i

If Iran doesn't want to be known as a tyrannical society with as of broken government of that of North Korea, if it wants to get respect for a (peaceful) nuclear program, they have to stop this oppression, let there be free speech. Heck, if this throws Iran into chaos and the president really wants what is best for Iran, he will step down and let the opposition leader take control.

I seem to recall there being some buzz in the independent media about Georgia invading South Ossetia, the mainstream media keeping quiet and then Russia saying they'd "defend" South Ossetia from Georgia at which point the mainstream media went "ZOMG TEH RUSKIES ARE INVADING GORGIA!!1"

Anyone that writes a story about this that doesn't mention Fark specifically needs to do a bit more research on the subject. Tats(uma) obviously gets quite a bit of credit, but he wasn't the only person there keeping up with the tweets. Fark (and oddly, 4chan) became major filters for finding the real data for the first several days. I'm amazed at the people who still don't know there's effectively a civil war going on in Iran, since CNN and other mainstream media didn't really start reporting on it until yesterday.

The other bit is, because mainstream media has to hedge their bets - they have something to lose, where sites like Fark [fark.com] aren't even media sites, so they have nothing to lose - CNN and such has to worry about whether the dissidents will be successful. Because if they aren't, then you've pissed off the people still in power. Media blockout is one thing, but there was reliable reports of many deaths long before MSM was reporting there being only a single death.

BTW, Iranians still need proxies for their twitter updates. If you have the ability...

Also, one of the ways people have been trying to make it more difficult for the Iranian police to track down dissidents is by changing their twitter location and timezone to that of Tehran. Feel free to do that too.

But yeah, twitter is the only thing able to make it out right now, considering.

This might seem a bit unnecessary, but readily handing out names to someone that replies to a comment isn't necessarily a good idea, what with the Iranian authorities actively looking for dissidents.

I'd suggest checking out the latest fark thread and either finding the info there, or just posting the question. Someone will likely email you if you ask for it. I'm not sure I trust my own people-vetting skills. It's easy to find the info there at fark though, and thanks for the proxies:)

ah, that sucks...because that's the name to give if someone gives a name:/ I bet he'll have to get a new account after this. That, and the next time I'm in his town, I've got a beer for him. Or hell, her - I dunno. Tats can probably give you info to; check his profile on fark for contact info.

Email me@austinheap.com, he's compiling an unpublished list of proxies that Iranians can ask for when they contact him. He's in one of the best positions to make sure the proxies get to the people who need them.

Hmm.... there's information missing here. It would presumably be trivially easy for the Iranian government to:

Cut landmines, or at the very least, if the Internet is a vital part of their economy or government activities, to filter the source IP addresses to only the government computers, presumably all accounted for and with known users.

The Iranian government has been actively seeking out and destroying sat dishes. Some still remain. While wireless is easy to block, it's not easy to block completely - not when your own police force has disbanded, the military is refusing to do anything, and you're left with little more than the few extra thugs. Granted, your thugs have guns, and the population does not, but your thugs are also the less educated, generally rural types. Hick thugs versus educated urbanites, and you don't think some of th

The problem, of course, is that sites like Fark are full of well-intentioned people who do not really know the first thing about what is going on or what they really should do -- they just want to do something, anything they can think of to feel like they are helping, while not even being very sure of WHAT they are helping.

So, being net-savvy, they think that forwarding every piece of information they receive (with no way bar VERY few exceptions of vetting that information) is helping, when they could very likely be opening themselves up to being used for propaganda from just about any imaginable source -- including the Mousavi campaign which 99.9% of those trying to help didn't even know existed before last Thursday, much less know anything about what it really means. They just know it's not Ahmadinejad and that has to be just splendid, so anything masquerading as not-being-Ahmadinejad must be your new BFF in Iran.

This is incredibly dangerous.

The urge to help, be part of history and change the world is strong, but it is extremely easy to exploit. Unless you _really_ are actively involved and _know_ your contacts and know what the hell you are doing, you stand a very high chance of hurting instead of helping -- and, let's face it, with no risk of danger sitting at a computer terminal in the U.S. and blind faith that everything you do is helping the cause, considering the conflict, you could end up contributing to people being killed.

Last year's bunch of guys in Guy Fawkes masks taking on the Cult of Scientology was just the warmup. This year, the sport of nerds is geopolitics.

This week, we had Twitter [twitter.com] replace CNN for live coverage of breaking news, Fark [fark.com] replacing the talking heads for analysis, Anonymous [slashdot.org] being linked to from The Pirate^WPersian Bay [thepiratebay.org] for ways to distribute images of preconfigured proxy servers, and to distribute video, and, the rest of/b/ actually helping by selectively flipping the DDOS switch on and off on Iranian government websites.

Not long after the first requests for proxies went out, went out the requests for "So how do I configure this again?".

So I created ProxyBox [exstatic.org] [mirror] [128.210.109.29] to help people get stuff setup quickly. It has squid (listening on a multitude of ports), tor, & ziproxy. It was quick and dirty (and the file size shows). Not to mention I'm just a Mechanical Engineer, not a security expert. This was meant for the fark crowd and not for the slashdot, I'm sure everyone here is more than capable of setting up some proxies.

Austin Heap [nyud.net] has been distributing the Proxies to Iranians on the inside via twitter and such. (Twitter [twitter.com]) his biggest problem right now is ssh servers inside of Iran to make sure that proxies work. Supposedly he's also been able to set up VPNs on fast connections. But work is slow because the internet is slow and he's down to 1-2 SSH boxes ATM.

How you can help:Well I'd like some help making ProxyBox a ton smaller. If DSL can get a full GUI in 50MB, there's no reason ProxyBox should be 400MB. I'd also like to turn it into a LiveCD or LiveUSB so it can be set up by anyone not just with VirtualBox. (jjarvis98 at gmail.com)

Tor is being used quite extensively. Some people have setup exit nodes and had their connections filled with people hitting nothing more than twitter, facebook & youtube. Set up an exit node or bridge if nothing else.

Slax is a small live-cd Linux based on Slackware. It's newest version is 100MB big, but I have an old 50MB iso that I can make available. If you have installed those tools by scratch, you'll need at most to recompile them at Slax, if you installed them by apt-get there may be some problems hidden at the instalation... If you need some help installing them, I can help you.

You can get my email from my profile. I'll see if I can get a smaller live distro.

Those mischievous denizens over at 4chan have apparently managed to throw up over 9000 proxies and waged a very effective series of denial of service attacks against the Iranian government. Somebody send those guys some Redbull and Cheetos!

They might hassle the government a little bit, but they also might gum up the tubes being used by regular folks to do things like post body counts and whatnot to Twitter (of all the ridiculous places).

against an irate populace is something that is one of the main pillars of our constitution.

The Declaration of Independance and the Right to Bear Arms were both very much about this. Basically, the Bill of Rights as a whole was meant to shore up the rights of the populace to defend itself against an abusive government.

It is very interesting to see that the Internet has changed the battlefield enough to level it in certain areas. Really since the mechanization of warfare, no populace could really effectively stand up to the military might of a state.

These protests are only low-intensity if you count that the protesters aren't starting violence. There have been literally millions of protesters in each of several cities--and these are the ones who are coming out despite the very real threat of attack from paramilitary forces.

What if instead of Iran and Tehran, it was the United States of America and San Francisco? What if instead of Iranian opposite party, it was Libertarians? What if instead of US citizens assisting Iranians dissidents, it was Chinese assisting US dissidents? Would it be a good thing, or an assault on our national sovreignty?

Until we hear otherwise, we have a violent minority who are upset about being under-represented. We also have sympathetic outsiders who are willing to support them.

The whole situation is pretty bitter sweet. On one hand, there are a group of people who are standing up for a Westernized idea of freedom. On the other hand, they are the minority voice in a country that for the most part seems okay with a pious, religious based social order. For democracy to work, the minority has to behave themselves and go along with what the majority has decided on.

I'm not a big fan of the socialization of our economic system, but you don't see me organizing violent protests in the street and demanding a return to a fiscal system more in line with what was defined in the Constitution.

It might be more like if John McCain had of won San Fransisco with 70% in november, and the Democrats took to the streets to protest a rigged election. The Libertarian party has not shown itself capable of becoming a mass movement in any real sense.
In regards to the last part of your comment, 1) I'm pretty sure the constitution doesn't define a "fiscal system," even though you probably meant economic system, and 2) the violence has largely been on the part of the Baseej, a super-nationalist militia, against the fairly peaceful protesters

Yeah, you're right, I fear the US, or at least the US powers-that-be, would be hypocritical if that kind of shitstorm was happening here. However, I'd say that that kind if political hypocrisy is an "everyone does it" game (don't make it right)However, the concept in your example seems to fall in the "likely couldn't understand it completely 'on paper' category

Any particular reason for selecting San Francisco as the US city in your example? If Libertarian politics have anythin

the situation in Iraq was no where close to the situation in Iran. Millions of Iranians haven't been killed by the Iranian government in the last decade, for example. Iran isn't targeting ethnic groups for extermination, and doesn't have a long history of killing dissidents. In fact, the dissidents biggest weapon right now is going up and giving the Basij hugs - seriously.

They do share a substantial border. And there was plenty of talk of *cough*Iranian interference*cough* with Iraqi affairs, to mention nothing of Lebanon.
However, the cute Cairo corner into which BHO has painted himself means that he has to continue W's hands-off-ish policy.
Sort of a lose-lose situation for the POTUS, really.

Iraq - killing off ethnicities, millions of dead Iraqis, dissidents were made public examples of, their families killed.Iran - nothing remotely like Iraq.

In Iran, dissidents are out in millions, hugging the Basij. In Iraq, dissidents were shot in high percentages. While people in Iran are being killed right now, it's substantially less than of 1% of the dissidents that are protesting. Phenomenally different situation.

Which is why, if you look at what I was responding to, the question of whether or not we should have gone to Iraq is not really relevant to whether we should go to Iran. They are different situations.

Iran is a considerably different place than Iraq was under Hussein. Under Hussein, Iraq was effectively a one-man dictatorship. Iran's governing structures are considerably more complex. Khamenei is the effective ruler of Iran, but there's considerable interplay with other high-level bodies, in particular the Guardian Council and the Assembly of Experts. There's a lot more jostling and scheming for influence than we are often aware. While, on the face of it, this may look like the beginnings of a revolution, I'm wagering it's more likely a coupe by former president Rafsanjani [wikipedia.org], who has close ties with Mousavi, and who is likely looking to unseat Khamenei and install himself as the Supreme Leader.

This is the saddest part of all of this. There are plenty of reasons for the Iranian people, or at least the middle and upper classes, to loathe Ahmadinejad, but if these proto-revolutionaries think they're fighting to take back Iran from the Ayatollahs, they're sadly mistaken. Mousavi is very much a loyal servant of the current regime, with many connections with the Guardian Council, certainly more than Ahmadinejad.

You must have missed the part where several Grand Ayatollahs have come out against the election results, and only 1 is backing it. And where part of the demands of the dissidents is that Khamenei - who first blessed, then condemned, then blessed again the results - be removed. In fact, there is substantial talk about the fact that Khamenei clearly does not have Allah's voice if he is changing his position; once he blessed it, he really should have stuck with that. The double reversal greatly harms his reputation, both inside and outside of Iran.

I even tossed together a wiki page about the stances of the various Marjas. [wikipedia.org] And L-rd have mercy, I'd love to have help editing it. There's a lot of things to try to filter, and most of those official pages are in languages I unfortunately cannot read.

This isn't a simple "nothing will change" situation anymore. Even Mousavi is likely to be temporary now, considering he was only allowed to run because Khamenei approved him.

Let me put it this way. If Khamenei and Ahmadinejad are turfed tomorrow, the Islamic regime will still be there. There may be some changes, but at the end of the day, and unless an actual proper, focused revolution occurs, the differences won't be substantial.

The fact that a pro-democracy, pro human-rights, even pro women's-rights Grand Ayatollah ( Montazeri ) is likely to become the new temporary Supreme Leader while a new constitution is written means nothing to you?

Again, I suggest you start digging a bit deeper. Revolutions don't require extensive bloodshed, this one seems to be doing fairly well considering - using mostly hugs. Who said this isn't a fullscale revolution?

Let me put it this way. If Khamenei and Ahmadinejad are turfed tomorrow, the Islamic regime will still be there.

Come on. If it's ok for Israel to have a Jewish regime, why isn't it ok for Iran to have an Islamic one? After all, their last experiment with a secular government didn't work out so well, the Shah was a thug propped in place by foreign governments.

Personally, I think that superstition should be kept far far away from government, religion is the opiate of the masses, etc. etc. But I'm obviousl

If Khamenei and Ahmadinejad are turfed tomorrow, the Islamic regime will still be there. There may be some changes, but at the end of the day, and unless an actual proper, focused revolution occurs, the differences won't be substantial.

England hasn't had a "proper, focussed revolution" since the Restoration, but despite the continuity of its government fairly substantial changes have occurred. The US hasn't had a successful "proper, focussed revolution" since the adoption of the Constitution, and the same i

no, because I've been keeping up with the information coming out of there for the last week.

The demands of the protestors (who number in the millions):

1. Dismissal of Khamenei for not being a fair leader2. Dismissal of Ahmadinejad for his illegal acts3. Temporary appointment of Ayatollah Montazeri as the Supreme Leader4. Recognition of Mousavi as the President5. Forming the Cabinet by Mousavi to prepare for revising the Constitution6. unconditional and immediate release of all political prisoners7. Dissolut

Personally, I think that superstition should be kept far far away from government, religion is the opiate of the masses, etc. etc. But I'm obviously in a minority. So just get rid of the thugs and puppetmasters, and hopefully the other stuff will take care of itself

Yes, because atheists are always the most tolerant people in the world. They never talk badly or try to enforce their personal views upon others (certainly not what this post suggested!). They always view someone who is considerate and tolerant of others, while holding their own religious view, as something other than a religious nutjob who has been duped by simple manipulation. They certainly don't extinguish all religious beliefs that may disagree with their own, selfish agendas when they come to power

The fact that a pro-democracy, pro human-rights, even pro women's-rights Grand Ayatollah ( Montazeri ) is likely to become the new temporary Supreme Leader while a new constitution is written means nothing to you?

The demand doesn't mean its likely to happen. I'm not at all an expert on Iran, but I'd be willing to bet that if the Guardian Council meets some of the demands (like throwing out the election results and tossing Khamenei), they won't appoint the temporary Supreme Leader proposed by the protestors,

Yes, but it was, universally, a large religion that brought them about.

Not particularly, if I were to start a religion saying 'murder is A-OK!' even in times where myth and fanciful things were the highlight of ones life, it would have been shot down instantly (or believers would have killed each other out).

Morals do not equate to religious precepts, however religious precepts throughout history do tend to encapsulate the morals of the time of the founding of the religion. What better way to fit the people your trying to make believers than to say you completely agree with most of their way of life, but you should worship $deity to make it better?

People tend to want to believe in something larger than themselves, to give their life more perceived meaning, it's in our nature to want our lives to be meaningful and to fit in with our peers. Religion fits that bill perfectly, thus it's prevalence throughout history, it only takes one man to think of one, and sufficiently convince others.

But essentially, you think morals came about because of religion, and I think religion just adopted some of the morals people already had.

First, let me commend your work in compiling the positions of the Marjas -- that is interesting and illuminating.

Even Mousavi is likely to be temporary now, considering he was only allowed to run because Khamenei approved him.

Since no one is allowed to run for President without the approval of the Guardian Council a whole, I'm not sure I see what is special about this. ISTR that there was at one point a perception that he was preferred by Khamenei as an obstacle to other reformists, but, given Khamenei's in

This is the saddest part of all of this. There are plenty of reasons for the Iranian people, or at least the middle and upper classes, to loathe Ahmadinejad, but if these proto-revolutionaries think they're fighting to take back Iran from the Ayatollahs, they're sadly mistaken.

As yet, I've heard nothing that indicates that the Iranian opposition that backs Mousavi is generally opposed to "the Ayatollahs", rather than particular current policies. Is it so hard to understand that people can fiercely oppose th

I think meddling would probably be the worst thing to do. What is Obama going to do? March troops in? Bomb Tehran? Drop propaganda? I think just about any direct US involvement can only work to the regime's favor at this point.

Maybe we could use reverse psychology. Obama could call Ahmadinejad, congratulate him and offer his full support. Mmmmmm. It would have worked better if G.W. was President because he could also publicly ask for pointer about how to steal an election in such a decisive way.

While some aspects of the US have appeal to some elements of the Iranian opposition, the US government is not exactly the most trusted institution among Iranians, and there is a serious risk that any visible connection between the US government and the Iranian opposition would do much to discredit that opposition among Iranians.

The situation would be somewhat different if, with the backing of its mass membership, the Iranian opposition were seeking the involvement of the US.

Grand plan! It isn't like we have meddled with regime change in Iran in the past (1953, 1980, in some views 2001-present)... or changes in Iraqi regimes (1963, 1968, 1992-1995, 2003)... or even toyed with political forces in Afghanistan, for that matter (1973-1974, 1978-1980s, continuing today). Oh, almost forgot about those little places in Southeast Asia, Central America, South America, Eastern Europe, and Africa. Citation [wikipedia.org]
You are right, this is a novel and new concept that we should definitely purs

Besides, if you want real democracy in the Middle East this is the best thing you could possibly hope for; thousands of Iranians marching in the streets demanding to be heard. The Iranian people, it would seem, actually want this to happen for themselves, as opposed to someone else doing it for them. The US should keep lines of communication open when they have jurisdiction over them, say to the world 'We sure hope the rightfully elected leader will come out on top', and stay the hell out of it.

Obama could offer congratulations to Ahamawhatever, thereby giving him the kiss of death. Jimmy Carter did to the Shah back in the 70s and it worked like a charm to discredit him among his people and pave the way for the Ayatollah.

Other than potential disastrous outcomes, who exactly would the US arm? This is not some united revolutionary movement with clear leaders. The closest thing to a leader is Mousavi, who is very much a member of the regime. You can't just go dumping guns on people and expecting them to clear out the current bunch. These are largely just Joe and Jane Averages.

I imagine the worst problem right now (and I've seen it first hand), is people that think they're helping but don't forward the ports, so they e-mail people the IP and it takes time to verify that what they setup is/was useless.

Seriously, stay out of it. The Iranian government is already accusing the US of interfering in internal issues, and has lodged an official complaint through diplomatic channels. This is mostly propaganda, but honestly the best thing we can do for them is to stay out of it.

In fact, if you see your local politician wanting to do something, tell them to shut up. You're not friends to the people of Iran, and speaking up with your opinion is something they don't want to hear.

I am a general fan of the "give them a proxy" idea, or a prepackaged darknet, or such. Sending them guns probably wouldn't work, they seem to be doing a damn good job with mostly peaceful protest actions.

I would rather the US government stay out of it. A lot of the world, justifiably, hates us for meddling, so I'd rather we don't.

I hate to say this, but Twitter is fulfilling an important need now, both for helping the actual protesters (and increasingly revolutionaries) do their thing, and for helping those of us in the West to know whats actually going on there without having to listen to the Iranian governments spin.

I don't think this is as much the US governments fault as many other actions we've done. If we are involved (don't have any proof either way) we're not involved in nearly the same way we were when we messed up the political systems of much of South America and the Middle East. But then again I'm always a fan of spreading unrest.

"In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didnâ(TM)t speak up because I wasnâ(TM)t a Communist;And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didnâ(TM)t speak up because I wasnâ(TM)t a trade unionist;And then they came for the Jews, And I didnâ(TM)t speak up because I wasnâ(TM)t a Jew;And then... they came for me... And by that time there was no one left to speak up."

Seriously, stay out of it. The Iranian government is already accusing the US of interfering in internal issues, and has lodged an official complaint through diplomatic channels. This is mostly propaganda, but honestly the best thing we can do for them is to stay out of it.

So... because an authoritarian government might complain about it, we should stay out of it, for the sake of Iranians? That makes sense if we were talking about military force. TALKING about the situation, on the other hand, in no way hurts Iranians.

It will create diplomatic tension between the US and Iran? Hmm... That's new. Wait, no, not new, the other thing "pretty standard."

If I did have strong criticism of the Iranian government, you know what wouldn't make me want to keep it to myself? Knowing t

Can you please post what we can do in order to help the Iranians throw over their dictatorship?

The point is not to overthrow a dictatorship, but simply make sure everyone is being heard there. What the Iranian people decide to do should have no bearing on what we do, given their sovereignty should be respected.

The West thinks in binary terms: free/not-free. [...] All while we are increasingly banning our own freedoms here in the West

We like our romanticized idea of freedoms. Our governments are slowly taking away freedom, so we would have a harder time justifying major rebellion. Too many people are complacent and vote our power-hungry politicians back into office. But in non-free states, we see an opportunity for people to unite to create a fresh start, to realize that romanticized ideal that our governments have tarnished. Sure, things aren't as simple as "the government dictates everything" or "do anything you want", but the closer you get to that stark contrast, the easier it is to get people to act together. No one here is trying to decide things for the Iranians, but to give them tools to better decide things for themselves; we are not forcing western ideals on anybody.

I know idealism has little to do with reality, but if you want to talk about how corrupt or controlling governments are you need to establish a baseline, so why not let that be freedom? Given that a proper government should always work to improve things, it makes sense for the ideal model to be something we cannot quite achieve.

Just because I say every government should work for freedom doesn't mean I think governments should minimize control in all cases. In the extreme example, communism might maximize freedom if less control meant people become abused by the upper class and become virtual slaves. Communism may minimize freedom if the people can generate a higher standard of living through their own economic choices. People simply need to have the ability to speak up about the current government and have the means to change it if there is a better way to establish fredom for the people.

As much as many here on slashdot like to bash twitter, its clear that social networking tools such as twitter and facebook can be immensely useful in this sort of repressive situation.

The same was true earlier of blogging from within Iraq in the lead up to and during (especially the early part of) the recent Iraq War, and even usenet and other contemporary internet outlets in the 1989 Tiananmen Square crackdown. That new media that are not at the top of the regimes radar are of particular utility in gettin

A common comment I see here is "Facebook groups achieve nothing" in respect to groups that have been setup to protest some specific issue.

This type of comment misses the point, of course a Facebook group wont directly influence say some political point, but because Facebook group joins are viral in that one person joins, their friend sees the cause, they join and so on these groups do spread the word about issues to people who wouldn't otherwise be aware.

Everyone who thinks they are helping by siding with the Iranian opposition has a very poor understanding of Iranian politics. It doesn't matter whether it's from the government or whether it's from regular Western citizens, helping the opposition figures does not help the United States in any way. It just puts a different face on the same anti-Western government.

I'm not American.

Even if I were American, why would I not want to support democracy in principle, even if the results weren't in my favour?

Even if I were only interested in Realpolitik, wouldn't I rather deal with a legitimately elected government than an illegitimate one? Legitimate governments tend to be more moderate and more, uh, sane.

I'm thinking that you in fact have a very low understanding of Iranian politics. Otherwise you would know that the Iranian President only wields so much of the power. The real seat of power rests with the Supreme Leader, for now this is Ayatollah Khamenei. Mousavi isn't a moderate as far as such terms may apply but he is way closer to the center than Ahmadinejad. The likely successor of Ayatollah Khamenei, if the revolution succeeds, would be Ayatollah Montazeri. Who is pro-Democracy, pro-Human Rights and one of the biggest proponents of women and civil rights for ALL Iranians, including much-maligned minorities like the Baha'is. In fact he goes further than the protections afforded to them under Sharia. He would be the one calling the shots.

helping the opposition figures does not help the United States in any way

People who are lending their support are not trying to help the United States, they're trying to help the Iranians. This isn't about the US.

What makes you think that if they opposition was successful in their political ambitions that they would become pro-American?

Because the Iranian people would realize that the American people, if not the American government, are willing to step up and help them out when they ask for it. There have already been messages from Iranians acknowledging the support they're getting from Americans and expressing their surprise and gratitude, even while acknowledging a lack of coverage by US media. If the Iranian people understand that the American people are their friends, they will be considerably less likely to view America as an enemy and considerably more likely to oppose an anti-American viewpoint by their own government.

This is more about Americans bonding with Iranians than it is about the US government bonding with the Iranian government.

The difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi is on economic policy not foreign policy.

An Iran whose economic regulations and corruption keep it poor is more dangerous than a prosperous Iran, because if they are prosperous they have more to lose from hurting their trading partners, and there is less need for the government to do "wag the dog" things to distract the populace from the poor economic situation.

At the same time, I don't suspect that Iranian support for Hezbollah, etc., is going away any time s

> Everyone who thinks they are helping by siding with the Iranian opposition> has a very poor understanding of Iranian politics.

People are risking death over a stolen election. If they succeed I'd suspect they will a) take their new found liberty a bit more seriously than the average American who usually can't even be bothered to vote and b) after getting a taste of what Liberty is all about they just might decide the like it and want more.

Look, I'm a conservative and all, but Kennedy had some things dead on. Like this:

"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty. 4

This much we pledge--and more."

Now would be a good time to at least stand up and make sure the Iranians know we hope they succeed. And yes I know that too much open support of the rebel forces would backfire. But it would be nice to see our government have the courage give the opposition some sign of support.

And besides, there is always the realpolitik angle, if they collapse into civil war it might slow down their nuke program a bit, buying time to find some solution other than waiting for Israel to solve the problem with high explosives.

Everyone who thinks they are helping by siding with the Iranian opposition has a very poor understanding of Iranian politics. It doesn't matter whether it's from the government or whether it's from regular Western citizens, helping the opposition figures does not help the United States in any way. It just puts a different face on the same anti-Western government. The difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi is on economic policy not foreign policy.

NATO troops to the east and west of Iran, a revolt going on inside Iran... what a coincidence.

From speaking with a Persian, I don't think that matters one iota, for all the rhetoric coming out of that blow hard "I'm a dinner jacket" or whatever his name is the average Persian doesn't care what Israel or the West does. This is about Iran.

The U.S. might be behind this (telling Israel to use its excellent intelligence service, to apply some pressure here and there), or it's a gift from the heavens for Washin